Narrow by Date

Comment Archives

Maybe the Park Board could explain why they think MPS owns the land under the pond.

Bulletin July13, 2013: McKay land claim hard to prove
However, the story has proved difficult to substantiate the more people look into it. A search of Deschutes County Assessors records turned up no evidence that the McKay family owns or pays taxes on land under the Deschutes River. The Bend Park & Recreation District and the city of Bend have not obtained deeds or other documents to back up the McKay familys ownership claims.
The Bulletin asked AmeriTitle to prepare a title report on land under Mirror Pond. On Thursday, Chuck Sheffield, a vice president of AmeriTitle, said the company could not provide a clear record of ownership.

A COMMUNITY VISION FOR MIRROR POND AND DOWNTOWN BEND
The McKay Trusts ownership of the land beneath Mirror Pond has been verified through a legal review of title research conducted by AmeriTitle in summer, 2013.

M.Rindfleisch: The folks behind Un-Bag Bend, who advocated for this change to city ordinance, are doing what you suggested, offering hand-made reusable bags to those who don't have them and who may have barriers to purchasing them. Not quite the sweeping approach you suggest through DHS, but an existing effort nonetheless. Here's a link to some Un-Bag Bend information: https://www.facebook.com/unbagbend/

U are an amazing person and I miss you so much we were best friends but their is no such thing as loosing you fover because one day I will see you again and we have eternity to spend being together _ I love you so much

I can find merit in all three of the main paths this issue could take, so I guess that makes me in the fourth group, by default. I lean toward a natural river, but that idea never seemed practical, especially now that PPL intends on keeping the dam and the public will not be guaranteed access to the new shore due to the pond floor being privately owned. My main wish is that whatever is done, the public should not have to foot the entire bill. Obviously, MPS feels that alternative funding is one part of the picture, but the money raised so far is a drop in the bucket. I was under the impression that the silting problem was caused mainly by a poorly maintained dam. In that case, given that the repair may be financially unfeasible, Pacific Power should at least be helping to cover the cost of alternatives, perhaps even matching any public or donated funds. Ideally, if the dam has to stay in place, Id like to see fish passage and working sluice gates. In that case, using public dollars to help fix PacifiCorps problem would probably be a worthy cause. If all we do is continue to defer maintenance, and dredge once in a generation, well, Mr. Buffet can probably afford to help pay for that, too.

While laudable, the City Council needs to re-write the code to include a mandate that stores have available free of charge to customers who forget reusable bags the empty product shipping boxes like Costco/Aldi and most grocery stores in Europe provide. Additionally, the waiver for EBT/WIC customers only perpetuates the myth that low income populations do not care about the environment. A better solution would be for the DHS office that enrolls someone in state assistance program provide that family with 2-3 free reusable bags. The purchase of those could be done on a volume price discount by the State DEQ from funds already available from fines from polluters. Finally, the ban on plastic should expand to take-out restaurants and food trucks which provide an inordinate level of plastic bags impacting the environment.

The simple one size fits all answer to the complex problem is bound to fail. with "spotting" proven to advance the fire more than a mile, a buffer will not significantly halt the spread of the fire. A change in the type of fuel of 30-100 feet as advocated by the NFPA is but one portion of an answer. As "Headwaters Economics" of Montana has shown. the additional cost of making new structures "fire proof" within the threatened areas solves many of the additional problems. Having a structure that is not adding fuel to the fire and reduces the need for first responders to concentrate their efforts on this problem and allows them to concentrate on stopping the fire. Modifying structure already in place costs more and I believe that it will require another answer by society.

This is a bummer. Ive always like the 22 oz bottle because its a great way of trying out a new beer without the commitment of the six pack. I have purchased six packs and sometimes found them to be disappointing, so five bottles or cans just sit in my fridge until they expire or find their way into a stew. Not to mention that beer just tastes better in glass as long as its freshly brewed.

Iconic views actually only benefit those home owners who live on the river along Drake Park. I would suggest that the City and MPS go back to Pacific Corp. and negotiate for the removal of the dam and let the river flow to its natural course or have the utility pay for the dredging. City residents should not have to be financially on the hook for the cost of dredging whether it be fees or otherwise.

Livingston and Moseley are heroes for standing up to this nonsense. Our city councilors who deny personal freedom in exchange for a mythical benefit will hopefully face a reckoning at the ballot box. What's next?...plastic straws...Styrofoam cups...high sugar drinks....etc. We don't need a nanny state. Bend residents are perfectly capable of making personal decisions about what type of bags they prefer to use.

1. Mirror Pond has reached a natural balance which will persist now that the future of the dam is secure. There is no need to dredge, now or in the future. As with the former log ponds upstream of the Old Mill, the silt deposits will form areas of wetlands with plants and abundant wildlife and the growth of these areas is self limiting. BP&R could accelerate wetlands development with plantings at a fraction of the cost of dredging.
2. The iconic Mirror Pond will remain a large expanse of open water but bordered in places by rich riparian sections, arguably an even more attractive centerpiece to Bend.
3. The proposal is to impose utility fees on Bend residents to meet a $6,000,000 cost for dredging without a public vote. Throughout the recent elction season, Mayor Russell and the new Councilors preached more community participation in City affairs, not less. Time to Walk the Walk?

Not sure how valid and useful online surveys can be. They can be manipulated by trolls. They do not give an accurate indication of community opinion, as it is impossible to weigh them according to age, income, gender, address, and other factors that would show that a representative sample of the community participated. Their true value lies in giving individuals an opportunity to sound off about issues, and individual comments are, of course, important. But don't mistake these as characteristic of the community as a whole.

The so-called "process" referred to by Mr. Fuller reached its culmination during the March 18, 2015, Bend City Council meeting. The crowd overflowed into the lobby, and at least 75% of those offering public testimony DISAGREED with the "alternative vision," which would have used up $5 million in State Lottery funds to green light the construction of 4 story condos on the river front. The State Legislature that summer voted against granting these funds. And, on Nov. 9, 2015, the only statistically valid survey ever done on Mirror Pond was published by the City of Bend. It clearly showed that significantly more Bendites favored habitat and a more natural future for Mirror Pond than "iconic views." With all respect, Mr. Fuller, please review this history; don't mischaracterize the sentiment of our community; and, please, please, please don't deny our community the right to participate in public hearings going forward. We have the right to determine how this additional $6 million will be spent, and you have the responsibility to listen to us.